• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Supreme Court declines Bush bumper sticker case

TacticalEvilDan

Shankmasta Killa
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 16, 2008
Messages
10,443
Reaction score
4,479
Location
Western NY and Geneva, CH
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
The US Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to hear the appeal of two Colorado residents who were excluded from a speech by President Bush in 2005 because White House aides saw them arrive in a car with a bumper sticker that proclaimed: “No More Blood For Oil.”

Although they had earlier obtained tickets to the event, passed through a security checkpoint, and said they had no intention of being disruptive, White House officials and volunteers ordered them removed from the venue by two uniformed police officers. The officials were acting under a Bush administration policy of barring from then-President Bush’s public appearances anyone who might disagree with him.

The speech was held at a privately owned museum in Denver but was open to members of the public who obtained tickets beforehand. As an official presidential speech, it was paid for with government funds.

Supreme Court declines Bush bumper sticker case - CSMonitor.com

Take it to the Free Speech Zone, you hippie degenerates! :lol:


Seriously, though, why do we even have a Supreme Court when they won't rule on something so simple and yet so important?
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
77,163
Reaction score
34,082
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Take it to the Free Speech Zone, you hippie degenerates! :lol:


Seriously, though, why do we even have a Supreme Court when they won't rule on something so simple and yet so important?

I figured out a new addition to our system of checks and balances: a big lever that citizens can pull. When pulled, the lever activates a devide that whacks the appropriate judge on the nose with a newspaper.

Bad Supreme Court. No. That's a BAD Supreme Court.

"No clearly established right?" What, now we need a specific constitutional amendment for every possible action? Amendment 4,153 to the US Constitution: No person shall be denied the right to wear a shirt that says "I'm a bomb disposal expert, if you see me running, try to keep up."
 

j-mac

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 11, 2009
Messages
38,362
Reaction score
11,332
Location
South Carolina
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Take it to the Free Speech Zone, you hippie degenerates! :lol:


Seriously, though, why do we even have a Supreme Court when they won't rule on something so simple and yet so important?


Hmmm...Does Obama screen for possible threats? Oh, and a clue, I bet they are people that disagree with his agenda, ya think? But when that Bush did it, it was evil.....ohhhhhhhhh.

j-mac
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
77,163
Reaction score
34,082
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Hmmm...Does Obama screen for possible threats? Oh, and a clue, I bet they are people that disagree with his agenda, ya think? But when that Bush did it, it was evil.....ohhhhhhhhh.

j-mac

The threat posed by bumper stickers?
 

Arcana XV

DP Veteran
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
6,405
Reaction score
4,811
Location
Geneva, Switzerland and Rochester, NY
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
Hmmm...Does Obama screen for possible threats? Oh, and a clue, I bet they are people that disagree with his agenda, ya think? But when that Bush did it, it was evil.....ohhhhhhhhh.

j-mac

Who cares?

This is not about one side or the other being equally wrong in their efforts to silence the opposition. This is about the Supreme Court refusing to even hear about these abuses.
 

Redress

Liberal Fascist For Life!
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 5, 2008
Messages
107,642
Reaction score
51,505
Location
Georgia
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Hmmm...Does Obama screen for possible threats? Oh, and a clue, I bet they are people that disagree with his agenda, ya think? But when that Bush did it, it was evil.....ohhhhhhhhh.

j-mac

Disagreeing does not make you a threat. Based on the story, the only thing that was used to bar them was that they disagreed with the president. I consider this a dangerous precedent.
 
Last edited:

Psychoclown

Clown Prince of Politics
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 8, 2006
Messages
1,786
Reaction score
1,472
Location
Hiding from the voices in my head.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
I don't like this precedent at all. Disagreeing with Bush (or any official) is not the same as causing a disruption. I'm all for tossing idiots who try to make a scene in inappropriate settings, but these two people had done nothing threatening or disruptive.
 

Orion

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 25, 2008
Messages
8,080
Reaction score
3,916
Location
Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Even though the tickets were available to anyone, it was a private event in a private museum. Bush could set any rules he wanted there in agreement with the museum staff. The Constitution doesn't apply just because it's the president giving a speech. If he was talking at a public location then the Constitution would probably apply.

I do think the matter was silly though. No war for oil doesn't necessarily mean you are against Bush. Obama has been continuing the war for oil too. :shrug:
 

TacticalEvilDan

Shankmasta Killa
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 16, 2008
Messages
10,443
Reaction score
4,479
Location
Western NY and Geneva, CH
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
It was a public event funded by taxpayer dollars at which the leader of the nation spoke.

There should've been all sorts of Constitutional grounds for permitting dissenters to appear.
 

The_Patriot

DP Veteran
Joined
May 28, 2010
Messages
1,488
Reaction score
206
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
The Act of Certiorari should be repealed and make the Supreme Court do its job.

@TED: Dissenters should have been allowed into the town hall meeting since the president supposedly represents them as well. By denying them entrance it tells the people that disagree with the president that they do not matter to him. Although, the majority of people don't even realize that they do not matter to the politicians anyway.
 

Councilman

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 25, 2009
Messages
4,454
Reaction score
1,654
Location
Riverside, County, CA.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Take it to the Free Speech Zone, you hippie degenerates! :lol:


Seriously, though, why do we even have a Supreme Court when they won't rule on something so simple and yet so important?

I raised hell about this story when it broke and some wackos on the right were defending Bushes people for this.

I agree about the free speech zone, but to me it's every square inch of all 50 states and all areas where our flag flies around the world.
:2usflag:

This was wrong.

Those who stand for nothing fall for anything.
 

jallman

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 12, 2005
Messages
36,913
Reaction score
11,282
Location
Los Angeles, CA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
I figured out a new addition to our system of checks and balances: a big lever that citizens can pull. When pulled, the lever activates a devide that whacks the appropriate judge on the nose with a newspaper.

Bad Supreme Court. No. That's a BAD Supreme Court.

"No clearly established right?" What, now we need a specific constitutional amendment for every possible action? Amendment 4,153 to the US Constitution: No person shall be denied the right to wear a shirt that says "I'm a bomb disposal expert, if you see me running, try to keep up."

Actually, the decision is correct. You have a right to peaceful gathering for political purposes. You have a right to protected speech in the written and spoken word. You have a right to free association.

However, nowhere do you have an established right to attend a political event if you are not wanted there. The venue was a private one. They were permitted to have who they wanted at the event.

The only recourse these people should have is a refund on their ticket.

I don't agree with Bush's security decisions, but the supreme court shouldn't be hearing this case.
 

Boo Radley

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
37,066
Reaction score
7,028
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
The Act of Certiorari should be repealed and make the Supreme Court do its job.

@TED: Dissenters should have been allowed into the town hall meeting since the president supposedly represents them as well. By denying them entrance it tells the people that disagree with the president that they do not matter to him. Although, the majority of people don't even realize that they do not matter to the politicians anyway.

As long as they behave. What we saw too often at town hall meetings was disruptive to the point of ending any real discouse or information gathering of any kind. You have to be willing to listen as well as want to speak.
 

The_Patriot

DP Veteran
Joined
May 28, 2010
Messages
1,488
Reaction score
206
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
As long as they behave. What we saw too often at town hall meetings was disruptive to the point of ending any real discouse or information gathering of any kind. You have to be willing to listen as well as want to speak.

I can agree with that.
 

TacticalEvilDan

Shankmasta Killa
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 16, 2008
Messages
10,443
Reaction score
4,479
Location
Western NY and Geneva, CH
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
However, nowhere do you have an established right to attend a political event if you are not wanted there. The venue was a private one. They were permitted to have who they wanted at the event.

It stopped being a protected political event when it was paid for by the government.

ETA: Sorry, I should've said private rather than protected.
 
Last edited:

jallman

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 12, 2005
Messages
36,913
Reaction score
11,282
Location
Los Angeles, CA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
It stopped being a protected political event when it was paid for by the government.

No it didn't. Nowhere do you have an established right to attend a government sponsored event at a private venue. If it were on the capital lawn, I could see it being an equal access thing. However, it's at a private venue. And the fact that it was government sponsored does not in any way suddenly grant you the right to attend.
 

Orion

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 25, 2008
Messages
8,080
Reaction score
3,916
Location
Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
No it didn't. Nowhere do you have an established right to attend a government sponsored event at a private venue. If it were on the capital lawn, I could see it being an equal access thing. However, it's at a private venue. And the fact that it was government sponsored does not in any way suddenly grant you the right to attend.

That was my interpretation as well. The museum is a private venue and thus they set the security parameters, which means if they want it to be a quiet audience they will probably try to curtail any chance of there being disruptions and loudmouths in attendance.

Do I like this approach? No. If it's a townhall meeting then it should include whoever wants to attend... but legally speaking, I think the ruling was right.
 

pbrauer

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 6, 2010
Messages
25,394
Reaction score
7,206
Location
Oregon
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Actually, the decision is correct. You have a right to peaceful gathering for political purposes. You have a right to protected speech in the written and spoken word. You have a right to free association.

However, nowhere do you have an established right to attend a political event if you are not wanted there. The venue was a private one. They were permitted to have who they wanted at the event.

The only recourse these people should have is a refund on their ticket.

I don't agree with Bush's security decisions, but the supreme court shouldn't be hearing this case.
\
Bush was POTUS in 2005 and this event was ostensibly paid by tax payers, there was no reason why they should have been tossed.
 

jallman

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 12, 2005
Messages
36,913
Reaction score
11,282
Location
Los Angeles, CA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
\
Bush was POTUS in 2005 and this event was ostensibly paid by tax payers, there was no reason why they should have been tossed.

I agree. But there's also nothing barring them from being tossed either. The SCOTUS made the right decision.
 

Orion

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 25, 2008
Messages
8,080
Reaction score
3,916
Location
Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
\
Bush was POTUS in 2005 and this event was ostensibly paid by tax payers, there was no reason why they should have been tossed.

The White House is paid for by tax payers too. That doesn't mean you can just walk in and have a good old conversation with Dubya.

The military is tax funded. Doesn't mean you can walk into a military base as you please.

There are rules and most of them have to do with security. Life's a bitch, then you die. :shrug:
 

RosieS

Active member
Joined
Sep 16, 2010
Messages
272
Reaction score
69
Location
Central Florida
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
This was set aside for a reason. The question over whether the individuals who turned the two bumper sticker owners away could be sued, or whether the Administration officials sponsoring the event and used the volunteers who turned the attendees away are more properly to be sued, is the larger issue at stake.

Justice Ginsburg objected to not taking this case (as did Justice Sotomayor) but she was pleased that the larger question is thereby more likely to be taken up by the Supremes.

It ain't over.

Regards from Rosie
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
255,790
Reaction score
77,631
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Who cares?

This is not about one side or the other being equally wrong in their efforts to silence the opposition. This is about the Supreme Court refusing to even hear about these abuses.

The supreme court turns down the vast majority writs of cert that are sent to it. There are many reasons for this above and beyond the fact that the supreme court does not have the capacity to adjudicate both all the direct appeals and discretionary appeals sent to it. In many cases, the court determines that the existing r uling was correct (a split in circuits almost always guarantees the USSC will hear the case-such as the McDonald v Chicago (14th amendment / 2nd Amendment) where the 7th and 9th Circuit reached contrary conclusions.

so in this case, who knows but pissing and moaning about the Supremes not taking up this case is hardly do to sinister reasons.
 

jambalaya

Cynical Optimist
DP Veteran
Joined
May 18, 2010
Messages
2,481
Reaction score
968
Location
Columbia, SC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
It is kind of stupid this went to the Supreme Court. This was a speech at a private venue where it was decided but not mandatory to open it to the public. The Bush people had every right to toss whomever they wanted for just about any reason. You can all it bad taste or cowardice but not unconstitutional. I hope they got their money back. That is about all they were entitle to sue for.
 
Top Bottom